MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            15 March 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999033113

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson 		Member	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That he be given a Regular Reenlistment Bonus (RRB).

APPLICANT STATES:  Due to advice given to him from his reenlistment NCO and circumstances beyond his control, he was unable to reenlist before he had reached 6 years of active service, which precluded him from reenlisting for the SRB.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 August 1993 with no prior service.  He was promoted to pay grade E-4.

On 6 February 1997 he reenlisted for 3 years for which he was given an SRB 0.5A.  He extended that reenlistment for 4 months to attend drill sergeant school, giving him a new expiration of term of service of 5 June 2000.

Army Regulation 601-280 establishes the policies and provision for the Army retention program.  In pertinent part it states that the SRB program is a retention incentive paid to soldiers in certain selected MOS’s who reenlist for a minimum of 3 years.  The objective of the SRB program is to increase the number of reenlistments in critical MOS’s that do not have adequate retention levels to man the career force.  Three zones have been established under the SRB program.  They are zone A, which applies to soldiers between 21 months and 6 years of active service, zone B for those soldiers between 6 and 10 years, and zone C, which applies to soldiers between 10 and 14 years of active service.  Within each zone a multiplier between of .5 and 6 is established based on the eligible MOS.  The amount of the bonus is determined by multiplying the soldiers monthly basic pay times the period of reenlistment (excluding any service obligation remaining from a previous enlistment/reenlistment) times the SRB zone multiplier, or $20,000, which ever is the lesser amount.  A soldier may be paid an SRB only once within each zone of eligibility.

In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM).  The PERSCOM stated that a soldier can only be paid one bonus in each zone.  Since the applicant received one reenlistment bonus in zone A he was not entitled to receive a second bonus.  The PERSCOM recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request.  The applicant was provided a copy of this advisory opinion and given the opportunity to submit additional argument or evidence.  He opted not to reply.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant was not entitled to a second zone A SRB.  As such, the delays he encountered in reenlisting did not result in the loss of a bonus in his case.

2.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_rvo ____  __mkp___  _vbc____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999033113	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000315	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	128.05	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.